2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs a wholesale and retail business of livestock products under the trade name of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (C), and the Defendant is a company that runs a wholesale and retail business of livestock products as its intended business.

B. From December 2015 to January 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of the goods amounting to KRW 26,561,090 with the Incheon District Court on the ground that the Plaintiff supplied only a portion of the livestock products and did not repay the remainder.

C. On February 17, 2017, the said court rendered a decision on performance recommendation to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant KRW 16,967,638, and any delay damages therefor,” and the certified copy of the said decision on performance recommendation was served on the Plaintiff’s spouse on February 21, 2017, and became final and conclusive on March 8, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as the "decision on performance recommendation of this case"). [The grounds for recognition of performance recommendation of this case: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Around December 2015, Nonparty D and E, who were in a pro rata relationship with the Plaintiff as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, made a transaction of livestock products that were the cause of the instant decision on performance recommendation by stealing the Plaintiff’s name by delivering the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is not obligated to pay the transaction price of the said livestock products, and compulsory execution based on the instant performance recommendation decision should be dismissed.

3. As to the fact that the Plaintiff received livestock products from the Defendant by misappropriation of the Plaintiff’s name, it is difficult to believe that the entry of the Plaintiff’s No. 1 in the evidence No. 1 is difficult, and it is insufficient to recognize it solely by the statement No. 2 in the evidence No. 1.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 2-2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s transaction of livestock products that caused the instant decision of performance recommendation shall be divided into December 2015 and January 2016.